Military Review

US Naval Institute: The End of the Carrier Era

174
US Naval Institute: The End of the Carrier Era
Aircraft carrier "Nimitz"


The flagships of the US Navy, the embodiment of American scope, power and flight of engineering and military-technical thought are ready to disappear from the seas and oceans. Like dinosaurs that once lived in a multitude and then disappeared completely and forever ...

Such prospects for the monsters of the American military fleet draws Ben Ho Van Beng, a senior analyst at the prestigious School of International Studies, headquartered in Singapore. It was his report on the topic of threats to aircraft carriers, published by the US Naval Institute and sounds like a requiem for the timelessly leaving the present day in depth. stories this type of ships.

Firstly, this is a fairly small deck radius aviation. Most F-18 fighter bombers (McDonnell Douglas F / A-18 Hornet) cannot retire from the base more than 500 nautical miles (926 km). And provided that the ship is at such a distance from the shore, the Hornet (as translated from English Hornet) is deprived of the possibility of penetrating deep into the territory of the enemy. If the object of the attack is not a shallow island, but a country with a "strategic depth" - then there is no sense in F-18.

Information: McDonnell Douglas F / A-18 Hornet. 1480 aircraft released. Unit cost varies between 29 and 57 millions of dollars - depending on the modification and year of manufacture.


The F-35 promised to replace him (in the American press, the development of this project does not hesitate to call it a “soap opera”), too, does not solve the problem, because its combat radius is more than 10% in the Hornet (reaches 550 offshore miles or xnumx km).

Information: Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter-bomber. As of December 2015, the 174 aircraft was built. The total cost of the program in 2011 was estimated at 382 billion dollars. In the projection of 55 years of production of this type of aircraft today, experts estimate the possible costs of it in 1,508 $ trillion, taking into account inflation. The cost of one aircraft, depending on the modifications (there are currently three), ranges from $ 153,1 million to $ 199,4 million.


Second, the two main probable opponents of the United States — China and Russia — are developing a new generation of long-range missiles that can be “pushed” deep into the continent — the above-mentioned expert believes that they can really be launched from a distance of 800 miles (1482 km) from coast for targets that are within the maximum range of US carrier-based aviation. The line of missile defense, due to its distance from the coast, high speed and low altitude of the missiles makes them virtually invisible to aircraft carriers.

Thus, the defending side does not need to attack aircraft carriers with dozens of coastal aircraft - it is enough, according to the expert, to hit one DF-21 rocket produced by China to put a vessel with a length of 335 meters to the bottom, together with a crew of approximately 6000 people. It is difficult to say where the planes that fly away from the mission will land after that (and on their aircraft carriers of the Nimitz class from 66 to 84 units).

Information: Carriers such as "Nimitz" (Nimitz class). Length - 332,5 m, displacement 101 600 - 106 300 tons. Power plants - 2 nuclear reactor A4W Westinghouse, 4 steam turbines, 4 diesel engine. The range of the trip is unlimited. Travel speed - 30 knots (56 km / h). Crew: 3200 man of the ship crew and 2480 man in the wing. Air group - from 64 to 90 airplanes and helicopters. Currently in service 10 units. The cost of building each - 4,5 billion dollars.


Planned new series - class "Gerald Ford." The first one was launched in the 2013 year. On 2019, the second is scheduled for construction. Tactical performance (TTX) is slightly different from those of the “Nimitz”.

The need to use this type of ship, in the existing conditions, disappears. Just as the need for building new ones disappears.

Help: DF-21 (Dongfeng-21, literally: "East Wind-21", according to NATO classification - CSS-5 mod.1), a Chinese two-stage solid-fuel ballistic missile. Flight distance - to 1800 km. Capable of carrying a nuclear warhead with power up to 300 kilotons. According to the US Department of Defense, China has at its disposal from 60 to 80 such missiles and 60 launchers.


Chinese PGRK with DF-21D rocket on parade

Carriers that, by their mere appearance near enemy territory, were to inflict animal fear on the enemy and give birth in his head the only thought - to surrender, turn into a bulky vessel, suitable at best as a prop for filming. At worst - for scrap. Titans are transformed into "Titanic."

And the global program of their construction, it seems, is more for “sawing” the funds allocated by the state: few people will be able to scare someone with such armament, and it’s easy to push money offshore.

There is another reason for which the US military can insist on “continuing the banquet” with aircraft carriers - similarly in the 80 of the last century, the USA pushed the USSR to invest huge money in the program-response to the US SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative). “Star Wars” ended up being a pure bluff, but the blow to the Soviet economy was very powerful. But if today the American "Nimitz" and "Geralda Fords" unwind with the same purpose, then it is unlikely that someone in the Russian Defense Ministry will bite again on such a bait.
Author:
Originator:
https://regnum.ru/news/international/2142183.html
174 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Teberii
    Teberii 11 June 2016 05: 48
    +4
    Both we and the Chinese are developing new generations of aircraft carriers.
    1. papas-57
      papas-57 11 June 2016 18: 23
      +2
      `` It is unlikely that someone in the Russian Ministry of Defense will fall for such a bait again. '' Do you think our officials do not like military money? You are wrong! At every opportunity to cut budget money, they will build anything, even if it is not necessary at all. And they will convince anyone of the need for these projects.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  2. Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 11 June 2016 05: 55
    +40
    Nevertheless, I think the age of aircraft carriers has not passed yet. I agree that in a full-blown conflict their fate will be decided quickly enough, but as an instrument of pressure and demonstration of power, they will still serve for a long time. Also, the goal of the aircraft carrier group, first of all, is to control the ocean, and not deep air wing attacks on enemy territory.
    1. Papandopulo
      Papandopulo 11 June 2016 06: 22
      -2
      Ocean control can and should be carried out by aircraft carriers of much smaller tonnage.
    2. xetai9977
      xetai9977 11 June 2016 08: 47
      +4
      They also spoke about tanks. And they are still alive than all the living. The age of aircraft carriers did not pass. Realities prove that you can’t do without them yet. In the age of rockets and aviation, infantry is still needed, as is the case with strike aircraft.
      1. i80186
        i80186 11 June 2016 09: 56
        +8
        Quote: xetai9977
        They also spoke about tanks. And they are still alive than all the living. The age of aircraft carriers did not pass. Realities prove that you can’t do without them yet. In the age of rockets and aviation, infantry is still needed, as is the case with strike aircraft.

        And what about the battleships there?
        1. Rus2012
          11 June 2016 12: 53
          +3
          Quote: i80186
          And what about the battleships there?

          ... as well as all other armadillos and cannon sailing boats :)))

          Although for the UN troops (or what will be instead), airplanes will be needed ... but with the total money collected from the entire gathering. To scare the Papuans and the remnants of the vassals of 3,14 villains after their deflate ...
        2. Ustinov 055 055
          Ustinov 055 055 17 June 2016 11: 46
          0
          Nalyapat if necessary) some by the way on conservation and if necessary will be put into operation
    3. cap
      cap 11 June 2016 10: 33
      +4
      Nevertheless, I think the age of aircraft carriers has not passed yet. I agree that in a full-blown conflict their fate will be decided quickly enough, but as an instrument of pressure and demonstration of power, they will still serve for a long time. Also, the goal of the aircraft carrier group, primarily - control of the ocean, and not deep attacks by an aircraft wing on enemy territory. [/ Quote]

      This is if there is nothing to shoot at them laughing .
      1. cap
        cap 11 June 2016 10: 41
        +3
        Quote: cap
        This is if there is nothing to shoot at them

    4. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 11 June 2016 12: 47
      +1
      "I agree that in a full-scale conflict, their fate will be decided quickly enough," /////

      Is not a fact. If you mean a nuclear conflict, then all nuclear weapons will go to cities,
      launching, important factories - stationary objects.
      No one will beat nuclear weapons on the move. aircraft carriers - hard to get. And just they will survive.
      1. Rus2012
        11 June 2016 12: 56
        +3
        Quote: voyaka uh
        And just they will survive.

        ... and what will they do next? Without gipies, kerosene, tsu - in the end?
        So a self-propelled boat without a head ...;)))))))))))))
      2. NEXUS
        NEXUS 11 June 2016 13: 48
        +3
        Quote: voyaka uh
        No one will beat nuclear weapons on the move. aircraft carriers - hard to get. And just they will survive.

        In the past few years, 1-2 AUGs have been dangling in the ocean. All other aircraft carriers are standing at the pier. Therefore, I believe, a blow will also be inflicted on the base where the aircraft carrier groups are stationed.
        1. Tigr
          Tigr 11 June 2016 17: 24
          +4
          Quote: NEXUS
          In the past few years, 1-2 AUGs have been dangling in the ocean. All other aircraft carriers are standing at the pier.

          Now there are 6 American AUGs in the sea. The seventh is getting ready to go to sea.
        2. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 11 June 2016 21: 30
          +2
          Quote: NEXUS
          A blow will also be inflicted on the base, where the groupings of aircraft carriers stand.
          That's for sure! BUT!
          This will be a blow to destroy the basing system, MTO and nearby arsenals of weapons.
          But there will be no 100% aircraft carriers there (with the possible exception of those being repaired at the docks). In the threatened period, they will crawl like cockroaches. Pearl Harbor taught them a lot. The Yankees are diligent students and do not step on the same rake twice. So, these monsters will have to be caught in the ocean.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 12 June 2016 18: 33
            +2
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            But aircraft carriers there will not be 100% (with the possible exception of those being repaired at the docks). In the threatened period, they will crawl like cockroaches.

            Avionics groups are a very effective military tool ... BUT ...
            As soon as ALL aircraft carrier formations go to sea, the effect of surprise will be lost, as each AUG is closely monitored. And the destruction of the AUG will most likely be carried out by a CD or anti-ship missile system with low-power nuclear warheads. Nobody will "play" in sea battle with mattresses, trying to sink 11 aircraft carrier formations with non-nuclear weapons. hi
      3. Vadim237
        Vadim237 11 June 2016 16: 58
        -4
        They will not hit cities - since there will be nothing more than that - all warheads will go to military facilities.
        1. Papandopulo
          Papandopulo 12 June 2016 06: 23
          +1
          Not comments, but almost completely some kind of madhouse.
        2. The comment was deleted.
      4. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 11 June 2016 18: 21
        +4
        Quote: voyaka uh
        "I agree that in a full-scale conflict, their fate will be decided quickly enough," /////

        Is not a fact. If you mean a nuclear conflict, then all nuclear weapons will go to cities,
        launching, important factories - stationary objects.
        No one will beat nuclear weapons on the move. aircraft carriers - hard to get. And just they will survive.

        voyaka uh A half-carrier fleet stands at the pier.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 11 June 2016 20: 22
          0
          "Half of the aircraft carrier fleet is moored." /////

          In peacetime. With an aggravation of the situation, the AUGs leave the bases.
          1. Lt. Air Force stock
            Lt. Air Force stock 11 June 2016 21: 23
            +3
            Quote: voyaka uh
            In peacetime. With an aggravation of the situation, the AUGs leave the bases.

            Well, at the start of a nuclear war they are unlikely to float away.
          2. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 11 June 2016 21: 50
            0
            Quote: Lt. air force reserve
            voyaka uh Aircraft carrier fleet stands at the pier.

            Quote: voyaka uh
            In peacetime. With an aggravation of the situation, the AUGs leave the bases.

            Once still standing means the Americans are not going to fight with us yet
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 12 June 2016 08: 44
              -2
              No longer standing. Half went to sea, the rest are completing preparations for this, the rest, see the comments on
              http://topwar.ru/96511-blokadnyy-kaliningrad-nenauchnaya-ne-fantastika.html
              They are going to provoke a war in the Baltic states with the blockade of Kaliningrad so that the Russian Federation gets bogged down there, further down the list ...
              It is very expensive to move such forces right away just in order to take someone to a show off, which means there are some specific goals, such as clamping back into the ATS.
              1. grandson of Perun
                grandson of Perun 14 June 2016 15: 06
                +1
                Quote: Simpsonian
                They are going to provoke a war in the Baltic states with the blockade of Kaliningrad so that the Russian Federation gets bogged down there, further down the list ...

                Aircraft carriers blockade of Kaliningrad? winked
                Why introduce such a large target into the Baltic Sea if amers have a bunch of airfields at their disposal in the "Baltic tigers"?
      5. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 11 June 2016 21: 03
        +2
        Quote: voyaka uh
        If you mean a nuclear conflict, then all nuclear weapons will go to cities, launchers, important plants - stationary facilities.
        Well, why immediately engage in strategic nuclear forces? There is also tactical nuclear weapons (against which the States are rebelling). There are a bunch of options for starting a conflict with the use of nuclear weapons. Well, then exponentially.
        Quote: voyaka uh
        No one will beat nuclear weapons on the move. aircraft carriers - hard to get. And just they will survive.
        "Nobody" may not be, but we and * kitaisa * will even be very easy ... Which does not suit the * exceptional * very much. Moreover, this is the main way to destroy them in an (unlimited) war with nuclear weapons.
        About "getting hard"... Difficult, but possible. And the methods of "hitting" are constantly being improved during the exercises and practiced during the training. The main problem is the time of obsolescence of the data of the place and EDC. But this problem has been solved recently.
        About "they'll survive."Only if the word "survive" will be written with 2 letters "E", as you suggest! laughing
        And so, it will be something like the following: VYaV, a wolf pack of anti-ship missiles, several upright ships with SBP ... well, and of course, the TO so "loved" by the amers.
        And then, everything that remains on the surface has 2 paths: to the bottom, or to the nearest naval base (although it probably will not be there by this time) to restore combat efficiency. There will be no talk of fulfilling the task set by AUG.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 13 June 2016 10: 16
          0
          "Nobody" may not be, but we and * kitaisa * will even very easily be "////

          The Chinese really have a chance: their nuclear weapons are almost all BRSD.
          They still can’t get to America, but they must be used.
          If you throw a few missiles at the AUG - ahead of the movement. AUG - approximately - that is, chances to get.
          Russia has all nuclear weapons - ICBMs. Cover all of America with a guarantee. And spend
          they are a pity for aircraft carriers. Again, for one AUG in the ocean you need several.
        2. The comment was deleted.
      6. Papandopulo
        Papandopulo 12 June 2016 06: 20
        0
        There are so many nuclear weapons that they will be required, of course, an adjustable weapon.
    5. Alekseev
      Alekseev 11 June 2016 13: 01
      0
      Quote: Razvedka_Boem
      in a full-blown conflict, their fate will be decided quickly enough, but as an instrument of pressure and demonstration of power,

      Yes, this is how the purpose of aircraft carriers was always understood. And the USA stuck them too much "with fat".
      They cannot fight the nuclear-missile powers, in such a conflict they are only good goals, but to keep the "little ones" all over the world at bay is yes.
      I can’t say the truth or not, but there was an opinion how the USSR at one time fought with the AUG with the help of the cruisers pr. 68 bis. In combat readiness for opening fire, they accompanied the American aircraft carrier with their main rapid-firing 203-mm caliber.
      A few volleys and a hat thing. The huge ship can no longer provide flights. Of course, the cruiser is not a tenant, but ... an aircraft carrier is more important. Who will receive the order faster.
      And now, instead of the cruiser, the dunphenes are different ...
      1. andrewkor
        andrewkor 11 June 2016 13: 25
        +2
        In bent, vigorous loaf "!!! The largest guns of Soviet cruisers, in addition to the pre-war construction of projects 26 and 26bis, were 180-mm 3-gun mounts MK-3-180. And the 68bis cruisers were armed with 152mm 3-gun MK -5bis. And painted a picture of the battle: Sugario is resting !!!
      2. Aqela
        Aqela 17 June 2016 07: 12
        +1
        For information:
        Project 68 bis cruisers
        Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        weaponry
        Artillery 12 × 152 mm (4 three-gun turrets MK-5bis)
        Anti-aircraft artillery 6 × 2 100-mm universal guns SM-5-1
        16 × 2 37 mm gun mounts MZA V-11M
        ...
        Project 68 bis cruisers, according to NATO classification - Sverdlov class. One of the first post-war projects and the last series of pure artillery cruisers in the USSR. They can be on duty and conduct military operations both near the coast and in the open sea. Serial construction of the LCR of this type was carried out in accordance with the first post-war program of military shipbuilding of the USSR, adopted in 1950 ... Since 1956, after the decommissioning of battleships of the Sevastopol type, the SRL of the Sverdlov type, until the mid-1960s, were the main ships in the core of the surface forces of the Navy of the USSR.

        Not only that, I do not recall something about the use of 203 mm caliber on warships in the USSR. It seems like they were 100 mm, 130 mm, 180 mm and (obsolete) 305 mm request
        12 "/ 52 cannon (305/52) - 305-mm cannon of the Obukhov plant, adopted in 1907 for use on battleships under construction and coastal batteries. The most powerful weapon ever serially installed on ships of the Russian or Soviet military This gun was developed after the 12 "/ 40 cannon of the 1895 model, installed on the battleships of the" Andrew the First-Called "type.

        Well, experimental 406 mm ...
        The 406-mm naval cannon B-37 is a Soviet naval gun of the caliber 406,4 mm (16 inches). The B-37 type guns in the three-gun tower installations, which received the code MK-1 (Marine Ship No. 1), were supposed to arm linear ships of the Soviet Union type, and at the turn of the 1940s-1950s (in the modernized MK-1M tower systems) battleships of the project 24. In connection with the cessation of the construction of battleships of the Soviet Union type in July 1941, work on the creation of the B-37 gun and the MK-1 turret to it was stopped.
        One of the experimental B-37 cannons in 1941-1944 took part in the defense of Leningrad from German troops and supported the troops of the Leningrad and Volkhov fronts in various directions as part of the battery number 1 of the Marine Research Artillery Range. During the period of hostilities, 37 shots were fired from the B-81 cannon at the enemy troops.

        Well, more ...
        The 220-mm ship’s gun SM-40 is a Soviet naval gun of 220 mm caliber. SM-40 type guns in three-gun turret installations SM-6 were intended for arming heavy cruisers of the project 66 of the USSR Navy. The gun and installation were designed by TsKB-34. The gun was presented for testing in 1954. The refusal to build the project 66 cruisers led to the cessation of further development of the SM-40 gun and the SM-6 turret.

        So the 203-mm guns are more likely a dream of a German deer or a dream of a Britishophobe crab ... wassat
    6. Lt. Air Force stock
      Lt. Air Force stock 11 June 2016 18: 19
      +2
      Quote: Razvedka_Boem
      Nevertheless, I think the age of aircraft carriers has not passed yet. I agree that in a full-blown conflict their fate will be decided quickly enough, but as an instrument of pressure and demonstration of power, they will still serve for a long time

      What's the point? Fifth generation fighters already have cruising supersonic sound, which means that airplanes can fly for a long time at supersonic speeds, which is about 5 kilometers per hour. The combat radius of 1700th generation fighters is 5 kilometers (F-1500 with PTB). The United States may well use the airfields of NATO member countries or friendly countries.
      1. Razvedka_Boem
        Razvedka_Boem 12 June 2016 19: 30
        0
        What is the fuel consumption of these engines? How much is an hour of flight time? Also, the NATO countries, this is not the American ACG, in these countries there can be revolutions, regime changes and foreign policy. Aircraft carriers with nuclear power plants have great autonomy and mobility; a larger displacement allows you to take on board fuel and weapons reserves that can provide per day, two flights of each aircraft based on their air wing for 3 weeks. Maybe I forgot that, but I think not much)
      2. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 13 June 2016 10: 27
        0
        "The United States may well use the airfields of NATO member countries
        or friendly countries. "////

        The great dignity of an aircraft carrier is your personal mobile airfield.
        You do not depend on allies, neutrals, their policies and whims.
        In addition, do not forget about refueling in the air. Bye in the air
        refuellers, the radius of an aircraft carrier’s aircraft increases significantly.
        And even if the aircraft carrier is damaged, the planes that are "stuck" in the air
        You can transfer with refueling to your distant base.
      3. The comment was deleted.
    7. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 11 June 2016 21: 29
      +2
      Quote: Razvedka_Boem
      Also, the goal of the aircraft carrier group, first of all, is to control the ocean, and not deep air wing attacks on enemy territory.

      I read an article, I thought that Deyvushkv wrote, but no, my beloved writers grow up, I want to ask the author who now reigns supreme in the ocean? Question number two, S. Hornet is a tactical bomber?
      .... Article minus.
      I do not understand the members of the forum who vehemently criticized Kaptsov, he at least wrote cool and somehow argued, there is no Kaptsov, it's a pity.
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 11 June 2016 21: 41
        +4
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        I do not understand the members of the forum who vehemently criticized Kaptsov, he at least wrote cool and somehow argued, there is no Kaptsov, it's a pity.

        Michael! Totally agree with you. And I share your sadness of expectation in anticipation of the release of the next article by "troublemaker" - Oleg Kaptsov!
  3. Yak28
    Yak28 11 June 2016 05: 56
    +6
    Russia does not have aircraft carriers like the USA means aircraft carriers are bad, the 5th generation aircraft are not mass-produced in Russia, it means the F-22 and F-35 are bad, Russia does not have a vertical take-off and landing aircraft, this is an unsuccessful and not promising scheme, and so on. I’m not aware of myself as carrier groups in a battle with a serious enemy with a decent fleet. But you will not agree to be able to deploy an air group by sea anywhere in the world. But here’s how an attack weapon against states that do not have a serious military infrastructure It’s fully suitable, and how a demonstration of power will do. In the same Syria, especially at the initial stage of the operation, would the Russian aircraft carrier with dozens of fighter aircraft on board, as well as AWACS, prevent that region?
    1. Papandopulo
      Papandopulo 11 June 2016 06: 28
      -8
      As a means of identifying and destroying the underwater components of strategic nuclear forces, it is also suitable for knocking out ordinary ships and submarines, and a means of long-range missile defense of their ships from anti-ship missiles. But with the advent of the possibility of a global strike (which may not be nuclear) and precision weapons for another half a century - a third of a century ago, they should not be built so large.
    2. Alexy
      Alexy 11 June 2016 06: 46
      +16
      Aircraft carrier is a very expensive pleasure. It’s much cheaper in Syria to deploy a military base.
      1. Aleksandr72
        Aleksandr72 11 June 2016 09: 09
        +9
        I agree with you. As the best means of air defense are our tanks at the enemy’s airdrome, the most unsinkable aircraft carrier is the air base (coastal or whatever) - the main thing is that it be located in the right place, providing basing and combat work of our own aviation on a short shoulder.
        And the Americans ... and what the Americans - they already have the Zamvolt (and two more are under construction), the goof is about to be completely ready ... sorry railgun. Why do they need aircraft carriers? (it's irony wassat ). As long as the United States is positioning itself as a world gendarme (even if they do not say it directly), they will need aircraft carriers to "educate" the disobedient in the most remote parts of the globe (examples: Libya, Yugoslavia and many other places). And this requires a powerful aircraft carrier fleet, which is not only the aircraft carriers themselves and carrier-based aircraft, but also ships and even submarines for escort. This is a developed coastal infrastructure, numerous naval bases abroad, etc. Like the author of the article, I do not think that it makes any sense for Russia to be guided by this trick of the West, trying to unleash a new round of the arms race - the shipbuilding industry of modern Russia is struggling to cope with the construction of ships - frigates with a displacement of 4000 tons. And the construction of an aircraft carrier with a capacity of 100 tons (it makes no sense less - the air group will be small, with a combat capability slightly different from zero and no modernization stock - aircraft carriers are not built for one or two years of operation) - for today's Russia it is too expensive in every sense pleasure ... Not to mention the fact that to maintain it in combat readiness it will be necessary to create the appropriate infrastructure and a whole fleet to accompany it on campaigns. And with the feasibility of building such an aircraft carrier, there are still more questions than answers. Russia really needs a strong sea fleet - its maritime borders are very long and need to be protected. This requires a lot of ships, both surface and underwater. But these are frigates, destroyers, the maximum of a cruiser. And the aircraft carriers - if only one: to replace the "Admiral Kuznetsov" (ships are not eternal, the service life of all is limited), and for training design personnel, and for training engineering personnel of shipbuilders (so as not to lose skills), and for the fleet - train both sailors and the carrier-based air group. And then we'll wait and see in which direction to develop the fleet.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 11 June 2016 12: 12
          +4
          "aircraft carriers are not built for one or two years of operation) - for today's Russia this pleasure is too expensive in all senses" /////

          Throughout your post, this phrase is key.
          When there is no money - not to aircraft carriers. And if there was money - they would build, like everyone else.
          1. 1rl141
            1rl141 11 June 2016 16: 32
            +6
            Quote: voyaka uh
            Throughout your post, this phrase is key.
            When there is no money - not to aircraft carriers. And if there was money - they would build, like everyone else.


            Just like in a joke ...
            1917, revolution, people in leather come to a Jew, they say:
            - Abram! We started to build socialism here, give me money?
            - Well, I need to consult with my wife ..
            - Okay, consult, we'll come tomorrow.
            Arrive the next day:
            - Well? Did you consult?
            -Yes. My Sarah is a stupid woman. But sometimes she says smart things. She said if there is no money, maybe there is no need to build?

            Jews! Give money to aircraft carriers!
            1. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 11 June 2016 22: 27
              +2
              Quote: 1rl141
              Jews! Give money to aircraft carriers!

              The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Putin has decided SEM M I B A N K I R SC Y N W! Earlier it was necessary to ask !!! laughing
              1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Razvedka_Boem
            Razvedka_Boem 11 June 2016 18: 04
            +3
            First of all - the construction of the fleet, there is a continuation of the policy. Russia is not going to attack anyone. And AUG is a means of attack and intimidation.
            At the moment, Russia does not need AUG, since its primary goals are not world hegemony, as the West is trying to imagine.
            Do not meddle with us. We'll figure it out ourselves.
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 11 June 2016 20: 27
              +1
              China, India, Japan, England - all are built by aircraft carriers or large helicopter carriers.
              Everyone's gonna attack and intimidate smile - there are no other reasons ...
              1. Razvedka_Boem
                Razvedka_Boem 11 June 2016 22: 38
                +1
                Perhaps for you China, India, Japan and England are the whole world .. but you are mistaken.
          3. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 11 June 2016 22: 08
            +3
            Quote: voyaka uh
            When there is no money - not to aircraft carriers. And if there was money - they would build, like everyone else.

            Does Amers have money? It seems only debts.
            Russia needs to borrow 20 trillion, build 15 aircraft carriers, 15000 aircraft and no one will ask about their debt.
            1. Svidetel 45
              Svidetel 45 12 June 2016 01: 00
              +1
              Good thought, but who would lend Russia 20 trillion?
            2. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 13 June 2016 10: 18
              -1
              for saturn.mmm:
              "Russia needs to borrow 20 trillion" ////

              If anyone lends ... of course. smile
            3. The comment was deleted.
          4. Andrey VOV
            Andrey VOV 13 June 2016 22: 47
            0
            Israel is quite a rich country ..... but you don’t build an aircraft carrier)) maybe it’s not all about the money?
        2. Svidetel 45
          Svidetel 45 12 June 2016 00: 57
          +2
          It is necessary to have an asymmetric response to the threats of the AUG, if we cannot, for economic reasons, have our own, as, for example, the Germans before WW1, in response to the powerful British fleet, which was based on battleships and heavy cruisers, "shook" submarines, which the British at first contemptuously were called "tin tadpoles", but when the fighting began these "tadpoles" became a big headache for the latter.
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 11 June 2016 22: 02
        0
        Quote: Alexy
        Aircraft carrier is a very expensive pleasure. It’s much cheaper in Syria to deploy a military base.

        But to see a good profit they bring once the traders riveted them so much.
  4. sgazeev
    sgazeev 11 June 2016 05: 58
    +2
    Pearl Harbor, but already a target for the Chinese. laughing
  5. Alexdark
    Alexdark 11 June 2016 05: 59
    +8
    That's where you need to strive laughing
    1. Uncle Murzik
      Uncle Murzik 11 June 2016 08: 50
      +1
      EPT "Space Marine"? laughing
    2. PSih2097
      PSih2097 11 June 2016 13: 17
      +7
      Quote: AlexDARK
      That's where you need to strive laughing

      no, not there. That's what you need ...



      Class: heavy aircraft carrier
      Manufacturer: Russian Defense Concern (Russian Directory)
      Year of inclusion in the lists of the fleet of the leader of the series: 2592
      Amount in series: 19; including delivered to Europe - 3; Hindu Directory - 1; Nippon Directories - 1
      In service on 9.01.2622/19/XNUMX: XNUMX
      Operational purpose: aircraft carrier to conquer and maintain overall superiority in the combat zone; the main striking force of aircraft carrier operational groups (OAS); FFP ship groupings and critical strategic facilities
      X-movement group: 5 Vostok-38 luxury generators
      Maneuverability: low
      Vitality: Medium
      Typical composition of the wing: 3 fighter squadrons; 1 heavy squadron; 2 assault squadrons; 2 torpedo squadrons; 1 supply squadron; 1 transport squadron
      Total number of pluggers: up to 110
      Floggers in the version of air transport: up to 150 (including disassembled and on external docking nodes)
      Armament: FCO laser and solid-state guns

      and put it in guard ...

      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 11 June 2016 22: 45
        +1
        Quote: PSih2097
        no, not there.
        Gorgeous pictures !!!
        That's just the physics problem: why is there such a runway as the earthly AVU? In SPACE there is no gravity in the earthly sense of the word. Enough landing pad with a docking unit / node.
        Oh, science fiction fiction - the Shirpotrebskaya gray! It would be better to study at school, or in extreme cases with scientific dreamers - they will still be smarter! Annihilators / teleporters / absorbers of space - and figs you will get to the bottom! Because everything is beyond the imagination of a simple layman. And here - space and a simple child prodigy with bells and whistles ... all in the same laws of physics ... But the picture is impressive!
        "Yeah, really ..." - said Kisa Vorobyaninov. (C)
    3. samoletil18
      samoletil18 11 June 2016 16: 00
      +2
      Link of Vakhmistrov 2.0.
    4. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 11 June 2016 22: 32
      +1
      Quote: AlexDARK
      That's where you need to strive

      Yes, like two fingers on the asphalt!
      Conquer Gravity! We will put a gravitsap - fight for your health! At least half the continent in the air!
      (Dreamy you are ours.)
  6. Uncle Murzik
    Uncle Murzik 11 June 2016 06: 13
    +2
    The era of aircraft carriers is passing, like the era of battleships in due time!
    1. Wild Hunt
      Wild Hunt 11 June 2016 06: 23
      +8
      the fleet will always need an aircraft carrier.

      The first Ford aircraft carrier on the way with delivery in September and the second 2022.
      1. Uncle Murzik
        Uncle Murzik 11 June 2016 06: 26
        +3
        I did not see more than one practical argument as opposed to the author of the article!
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 11 June 2016 12: 18
          +4
          DF-21 medium-range missiles The Aegis missile defense system can intercept.
          Not for nothing around each aircraft carrier - 2-4 missile defense ships.
          In addition, it is not clear how the Df-21s are going to aim at a moving target.
          AUG in a combat situation is constantly at a speed of 30 knots, making maneuvers.
          1. Uncle Murzik
            Uncle Murzik 11 June 2016 13: 34
            +1
            and when Aegis intercepted at least five DF-21 missiles in combat! only theoretically
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 June 2016 13: 47
            +1
            Quote: voyaka uh
            DF-21 medium-range missiles The Aegis missile defense system can intercept.

            They still need to be launched. So far, not a single test on a moving naval target is not.
            1. Papandopulo
              Papandopulo 12 June 2016 06: 35
              -4
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              They still need to be launched.

              Who, Aegis missile defense?

              Did the Chinese report this? Conventional ballistic missiles have long had a CWO with a shaft cover, if they did not know how to hit a moving target, they would not be allocated to a separate class.
          3. Vadim237
            Vadim237 11 June 2016 17: 01
            +1
            The Chinese did not test their DF 21 rocket on mobile ships, so talking about its effectiveness is premature.
            1. Papandopulo
              Papandopulo 12 June 2016 06: 37
              -2
              Maybe the mobile unit was driving along the shore itself?
        2. Slippery
          Slippery 11 June 2016 17: 31
          +7
          communications ... war is a supply, and sea lanes are the best communications, so choose how you want: we are against all or we are with allies. Well, we are against everyone ... our falcon of Russia knocks down three occupation hawks and dies (good alignment), those who calmly carry resources by sea, build factories to produce them simply more hands, ore, etc. how long will we last? also with anything from a can of stew to a solarium. But if we begin to cut communications with them using AUG, then there will be other layouts, for this purpose they drove to the warehouse in the USSR, agree that it’s easier to set up factories for the production of tanks, to preserve and cover their air defenses. But how will we drag tanks to the line of contact? I repeat sea routes are the cheapest communications Well, a well-worn who owns the seas owns the world. If not an argument then write.
          1. Papandopulo
            Papandopulo 12 June 2016 06: 39
            -3
            Who owns the cosmos - owns everything.
  7. 52
    52 11 June 2016 06: 18
    +6
    Early arranged the AUG funeral.
    1. arkadiyssk
      arkadiyssk 11 June 2016 07: 18
      +7
      Well, the author himself does not understand that trying to prove that aircraft carriers are useless for attacking a strong country like the Russian Federation, he immediately proves that aircraft carriers are an excellent means of protection - because they will not allow a serious fleet to approach their shores, or they will intercept aircraft.

      So you can scream as much as you like - there are no aircraft carriers with us and it is not really necessary, but the Americans do not agree. They still have plans: once every 5 years to commission the CVN, once every 3 years to commission the LHD landing ship, a couple of missile defense destroyers annually, every 2 years, new supply tankers and a bunch of frigates begin to be stamped after a year.
    2. ziama
      ziama 11 June 2016 10: 11
      +7
      True term. Aircraft carrier is not a single combat unit. An aircraft carrier is the heart of a strike group of a dozen warships and a pair of submarines that provide him with both missile defense and anti-aircraft defense. To crack such a nut, you need a little more than a single rocket launch from a coastal base ... AUG is a well-designed attack mechanism.
  8. demiurg
    demiurg 11 June 2016 06: 22
    +8
    Aircraft carrier is a mobile aviation regiment, with its airfield and AWACS. And for an aggressive policy they are even needed. In a couple of weeks, anywhere in the world the United States can deliver 2-3 aircraft carriers, this is more than 200 aircraft. Such a fist can withstand two states on the planet.
    Yes, and one tomahawks do not coax, very expensive even for the United States.
    1. Papandopulo
      Papandopulo 11 June 2016 06: 31
      -7
      Can't India and Israel?
      1. Papandopulo
        Papandopulo 12 June 2016 07: 12
        0
        Well, they can’t, then they can’t ...
    2. Wild Hunt
      Wild Hunt 11 June 2016 08: 48
      +4
      Quote: demiurg
      very expensive


      it's hard work, but it looks beautiful when everything works properly on an aircraft carrier hi

      1. Razvedka_Boem
        Razvedka_Boem 12 June 2016 19: 41
        +1
        Impressive ..) Especially banana republics)
  9. strannik1985
    strannik1985 11 June 2016 06: 46
    +8
    Ahem, actually the only success of the DF-21 is the defeat of a stationary target, and it is not clear what came before, the target or the hit. The complex did not work on a moving target, it is not clear what the ZSCU will provide. To draw such far-reaching conclusions on the basis of a complex not accepted for service ...?
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 11 June 2016 23: 01
      +2
      Quote: strannik1985
      To draw such far-reaching conclusions on the basis of a complex not accepted for service ...?

      DF-21 adopted by the PLA in the 1996 year.
      1. Papandopulo
        Papandopulo 12 June 2016 06: 42
        0
        "Accepted" should be highlighted in red and underlined, otherwise they will not understand.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. strannik1985
        strannik1985 12 June 2016 06: 53
        +1
        The "anti-aircraft" DF-21D NYAZ has not yet been put into service, its development began in the early 2000s, and was first shown on September 3, 2015.
        1. Papandopulo
          Papandopulo 12 June 2016 07: 09
          -1
          But does China know how many rockets China has and what nuclear weapons, as well as nuclear weapons?
          1. Razvedka_Boem
            Razvedka_Boem 12 June 2016 19: 43
            0
            Nobody knows for sure, only very approximately. But even in this calculation, hundreds of charges and carriers come to them.
            1. Papandopulo
              Papandopulo 13 June 2016 00: 39
              0
              Nobody knows, but they cut everything ...
  10. Alexy
    Alexy 11 June 2016 06: 51
    +4
    I already wrote here that aircraft carriers are good only for war with the natives. For a militarily strong country, an aircraft carrier becomes a large and vulnerable target. This refers to an attack along the coast. In the open sea, of course, it is difficult to cope with it.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 11 June 2016 17: 10
      +3
      "For a militarily strong country, an aircraft carrier becomes a large and vulnerable target. I mean an attack along the coast" - No country in the world has a fleet that could compete with the US Navy, even Russia has a fleet-to-US ratio of 1 to 7 - 10 And no one has effective means of destroying aircraft carrier formations. And when in the USA the F 35B is brought to mind and put into production, all of their landing ships will also become aircraft carriers.
  11. Gennady Chepur
    Gennady Chepur 11 June 2016 06: 52
    +4
    It is not the class of aircraft carriers that is obsolete, but the aircraft based on them. The sixth generation of carrier-based aviation, the main feature of which is the presence of artificial intelligence and the absence of a pilot, will significantly increase the combat radius and the number of aircraft based on the aircraft carrier, and the size of the aircraft carrier itself can be reduced, since takeoff and landing without a pilot can be carried out with great overloads, which means with a short deck.
    Well, and as they said here above, indeed, the attack onshore facilities is only one of the objectives of the AUG. The main tasks are to ensure maritime communications and the availability of a flag for political pressure.
    1. Riv
      Riv 11 June 2016 08: 13
      +10
      There is, as in a common joke, a nuance. An aircraft carrier (and any other mobile target) is extremely vulnerable to strikes from space. For example: the orbit of the ISS has a height of only 350 kilometers. For modern rocket technology, this is a real minuscule.

      A space-based missile does not need powerful accelerators, or even a somewhat sophisticated guidance system. There are no problems with acceleration to hypersonic speed either: it already has the first space one. On the contrary: the rocket must be braked so that it leaves the orbit. From the aircraft carrier they will see a small light on the horizon in the night sky (brake engines have turned on), then it will go out (the rocket shot off the false targets), after a minute it will flash again, but much brighter (the warhead has entered the atmosphere). After this, the team has ten seconds to pray.

      A strike from space can be delivered from any direction and from any distance, even from the Lagrange point. Ammunition of any power can be used.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 11 June 2016 12: 24
        +1
        While there is an agreement on the prohibition of placement in space.
        It benefits both parties: the Americans because of the example you cited
        and the Russians due to a quick strike on launching ICBMs and taking off ICBMs from space.
        1. Riv
          Riv 11 June 2016 15: 44
          +2
          The treaty does not prohibit the deployment of ORDINARY armaments in orbit.
        2. Vadim237
          Vadim237 11 June 2016 17: 14
          0
          The United States already has the X 37 space bomber, there will be no difficulty placing a pair of W 88 warheads in its cargo compartment.
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 11 June 2016 23: 06
        +1
        Quote: Riv
        A strike from space can be launched from any direction and from any distance.

        That's just bad luck: placing weapons in space ... Nuclear is prohibited, but the usual has not yet been withdrawn ...
        So, there will be a day - there will be food!
    2. KaPToC
      KaPToC 11 June 2016 15: 29
      +1
      An aircraft carrier - a carrier of Kamikaze unmanned aerial vehicles - this is a missile ship.
  12. demiurg
    demiurg 11 June 2016 06: 55
    0
    Quote: AlexDARK
    That's where you need to strive laughing

    The runway ends just above the drive. The plane missed past the strip, and into the meat grinder. That's right, nefik miss.
  13. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 11 June 2016 06: 55
    +7
    Aircraft carrier is just a floating airfield, with its limitations and capabilities. I have repeatedly said that the ship is a tangle of compromises. An aircraft carrier is an inflated ball of enormous size, which is reflected in the price. And it has a limit of possibilities to use. Therefore, considering an aircraft carrier as some kind of supernatural weapon is very short-sighted. There are restrictions on the launch time, and, therefore, the use of the entire air group at the same time is very problematic. Yes, and smart heads in some countries come up with weapons that can fight aircraft carriers, moreover, much cheaper. It remains only to check in on real samples (God forbid, of course) ...
  14. strannik1985
    strannik1985 11 June 2016 07: 38
    +3
    First of all, the aircraft carrier is a means of controlling the sea, so to speak, the long-range line of the US defense, "Fleet against the Shore" is an adaptation for a non-primary (because there is no serious enemy capable of fighting at sea yet) task.
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 11 June 2016 11: 56
      0
      For a long time, aerospace weapons outweigh marine ones.
  15. Izotovp
    Izotovp 11 June 2016 08: 03
    +3
    It is not entirely true to consider an aircraft carrier as a separate target. He does not walk alone and escort ships have advanced air defense and the aircraft themselves, based on an aircraft carrier, have the ability to intercept such missiles.
    1. Uncle Murzik
      Uncle Murzik 11 June 2016 08: 55
      0
      besides the exercises, did this happen somewhere? in the sense of immediately intercepting more than a dozen cruise missiles
  16. dobrovchic
    dobrovchic 11 June 2016 08: 07
    +3
    A fair wind for them with the Titanic! laughing
  17. Kostya Andreev
    Kostya Andreev 11 June 2016 08: 12
    +6
    Regarding the Chinese cancer, it is not known how it is controlled, since it is flying in plasma, and therefore, this causes skepticism among many, but this does not prevent our liberals, for example, from the "echo of Moscow", and not only them, to admire the projectile from the railgun, for example Latynin so bluntly and says that "I don't know how they run it, maybe by radio or by wire, but they did it."
    Regarding aircraft carriers, it’s a dandy. Russia will give its competitors in Europe and on foggy islands. And bothers for the show off, not that economic situation. Can you, with the help of aircraft carriers, control the sshanet, that's the answer to the question of whether they are needed or not
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 11 June 2016 11: 49
      0
      ... why does everyone forget about Alaska (now the US state)?
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 12 June 2016 02: 43
        +1
        In the event of such a bombing and landing in Alaska is a taboo, as well as returning it?
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. Antiprogressor
    Antiprogressor 11 June 2016 09: 20
    0
    Quote: Yak28
    .In the same Syria, especially the initial stage of the operation, would a Russian aircraft carrier with dozens of fighter aircraft on board, as well as AWACS aircraft, prevent that region.

    And the Energy rocket with Buran, and each resident in a helicopter and an all-terrain vehicle, because there are not enough roads. On our main TransSib highway, the road is pouring. Once a train with rockets or nuclear moorings is shaking. Yes, and sorry for the passengers.
    Ali still, to hell with them, with the roads! We sit on an aircraft carrier and all to Thailand on vacation!
  20. Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 11 June 2016 09: 31
    +1
    The whole question is how to use this or that weapon.
    The doctrine based the entire fleet around the aircraft carriers, making them the main striking force since the advent of jet aircraft, died IMHO. It’s just that they eat guzzled pistons many times more and when the last plane of the flight takes off, the first one should land because of = exhaustion of fuel.
    The second point is the development of rocket technology. Already in the 70s, the main enemy of the United States of the USSR could destroy an aircraft carrier warrant by flying a couple of aircraft links. Just spamming missile defense missile defense orders. Now the development of technology has shown (one of the leading US cruisers Donald Cook turned out to be a floating trough after flying one of our aircraft above him) that it takes less effort to break through.
    Submarines also repeatedly forced to compress the points of the shipbuilders.
    No, comrades, I’m not saying that aircraft carriers are completely dead like battleships at the time, but they should be used as support, and not as the main weapon of a warrant.
    All my IMHA
    1. aiw
      aiw 11 June 2016 12: 54
      +1
      The story about Cook is a fake, stop copying it already.

      The combat radius of a rocket-propelled carrier-based aircraft is not less than that of a piston aircraft, with only a twofold increase in speed - so your statement about "when the last plane of a flight takes off, the first one should land because of fuel consumption." to put it mildly not true.

      And a pair of aircraft links (if it’s not a strategist - and then there’s no complete certainty) doesn’t spoil the AOG air defense missiles.
  21. Berkut24
    Berkut24 11 June 2016 09: 51
    +2
    In many ways I agree with the author. On the eve of World War II, everyone scared each other with battleships. After calculating the statistics after the war, it was found out that the main killer turned out to be submarines and aviation. Hitler scared the convoys of the allies with these monsters, and the Americans with one aircraft sent to the bottom of Yamato and his brothers in misfortune.
    It is naive to think that all parties to the upcoming conflict will begin to churn out these vessels like Americans. In fact, both Russia and China are following the path of an "asymmetric response." The fact that India and China are building "semi-aircraft carriers" does not mean that they will be used against the United States. This is their Asian get-together and nothing more.
    The author, among the means of destruction, for some reason left the topic of the nuclear submarine, although the same “Severodvinsk” can still deliver that headache. The United States will never again be able to count on an aircraft carrier group to get lost somewhere in the ocean. It is now too visible a target for intelligence systems. It remains to find an adequate means of defeat.
    Aircraft carrier does not go alone. And such a concentration of the enemy’s striking forces in one place at a distance from our borders gives rise to the temptation to resolve the issue with a single strike even beyond the borders of the enemy’s armament.
  22. strannik1985
    strannik1985 11 June 2016 10: 17
    -7
    The United States will never again be able to expect that the carrier group will be able to get lost somewhere in the ocean. This is now too noticeable a target for intelligence systems. It remains to find an adequate means of destruction.

    During the FleetEx-82 exercises, the AUS consisting of more than 30 ships maneuvered 300 miles (according to Soviet estimates) southeast of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky and carried out carrier-based flights at a distance of 150 km from the USSR coast, conducted carrier-based flights, washed off one stormy night person (take-off of rescue helicopters, search by several ships, voice talks in the UHF band) -AUS was not detected, although it was located about 360 (200 nautical miles, according to E. Pico) km from Soviet airfields on the Kuril Islands.
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 11 June 2016 11: 54
      +1
      At this time, the USSR already had radars which from its territory saw how planes took off and landed in California.
      1. strannik1985
        strannik1985 11 June 2016 12: 16
        -1
        At this time, the USSR already had radars which from its territory saw how planes took off and landed in California.

        http://tsushima.su/forums/viewtopic.php?id=9485
        About the same from the other side of the direct participant Karev V.A. Unknown Soviet "Pearl Harbor"
        http://www.38brrzk.ru/public/russia-parl-harbor/
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 11 June 2016 13: 03
          0
          Well, "Tsushima" yes, as always objective, then more ...
          1. strannik1985
            strannik1985 11 June 2016 13: 05
            0
            So refute what the problem is?
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 11 June 2016 21: 17
              0
              Refute the dregs? Maybe as Rust didn’t notice the order of Don-2? In other comments about radar read.
            2. The comment was deleted.
        2. Uncle Murzik
          Uncle Murzik 11 June 2016 13: 23
          0
          Fourthly, the results of the past Flitex-82 exercises became an incentive to conduct even more aggressive Flitex-83 exercises, and then the Passex off our coast with the participation of three carrier groups deployed from the new Bremerton naval base "On the border with Canada and San Diego with the participation of nuclear carriers" Nimitz "," Enterprise "," Washington "along the Aleutian Islands to Kamchatka. But at that time we were ready to meet them fully armed. Two high-speed reconnaissance ships, an anti-aircraft division of nuclear submarines, air divisions of naval missile-carrying aircraft, long-range reconnaissance aircraft and direct tracking ships. Therefore, the surprise of the Americans did not work.
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 12 June 2016 02: 41
            0
            It didn’t work with her then, everything is monitored by patrol planes and satellites, not ships.
            1. strannik1985
              strannik1985 12 June 2016 04: 41
              -1
              A source? laughing Stormy imagination?
              1. Simpsonian
                Simpsonian 12 June 2016 08: 47
                0
                The fact that there are patrol planes and satellites of optical and radar reconnaissance? Did not know about these?
                1. strannik1985
                  strannik1985 12 June 2016 09: 42
                  0
                  I.e. again your fingering. Thank.
                  1. Simpsonian
                    Simpsonian 12 June 2016 15: 46
                    0
                    Those. you didn’t know about them, as well as what radar is, and that it can be passive?
                    What in the light of this is not at all surprising laughing
                    1. strannik1985
                      strannik1985 12 June 2016 16: 57
                      -2
                      Examples of "passive radar" radar "Cyrano" Mirage IIIEA? No, I didn't find laughing
                      1. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 12 June 2016 18: 17
                        0
                        Did he sit behind her? Because he only trolls, rained with contractions, it’s odd
                        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Радиолокация
                        and didn't think anything ...
                      2. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 13 June 2016 00: 44
                        0
                        Do not confuse Hegel with Babel.
                        For determination and direction finding of sources of electromagnetic radiation, Mr. Minusator, there are special RTR stations, for example, as part of the E-2C Hokai avionics there is such a station, were there such Mirage?
                      3. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 13 June 2016 07: 25
                        0
                        Again thoughtless contractions. I’m sure that you don’t know who they are, although Babel is your everything ... A radar station takes an azimuth to its target. If this target, as AWACS / SAM, emits itself, then there is no need to highlight it (except for determining the range, if the radar is not able to do otherwise).
                        I don’t remember that both minuses, or at least one, were mine. RTR is a television channel. The same thing with anti-radar missiles - they fly somewhere ...
                        What planet are you from? winked
                      4. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 13 June 2016 09: 35
                        0
                        Now pzhalsta confirm your alternative physics with links to sources. Did anyone find realties with a radar in "passive mode"?
                        Who is your doctor if you don’t own (pretend you don’t know basic terminology)?
                      5. The comment was deleted.
                      6. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 13 June 2016 21: 59
                        0
                        It is clear that not with this ... In the textbook of real radar, look "terminologist", if Wikipedia is banned. And better, since it will be difficult for you, again ask yourself the question - is the RTR station in a semi-active (or active) rocket with a seeker radar, and whether without having it at least one of them has found its goal in the entire history of aviation ... lol
                        See below answer
                        Answer: Passive GOS is still simpler than radar, and somehow finds a target without RTR.
                        You need a doctor - you. Urgently. Or to re-test, learn new abbreviations by heart.
                      7. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 14 June 2016 07: 32
                        0
                        In the textbook of real radar, look "terminologist" if the Wikipedia banned

                        Your statement is for you to prove.

                        And it’s better, since it will be difficult for you, ask yourself the question again - is the RTR station in a semi-active (or active) missile with a radar seeker, and if not having one of them found its purpose in the entire history of aviation ... lol

                        So you are going to direct planes through GOS R530? How technically will this happen?
                      8. The comment was deleted.
                      9. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 14 June 2016 11: 42
                        0
                        This is not a statement, this is a recommendation.

                        On this GOS it is written that this is a RTR channel? So no laughing
                        Although it is possible and yes - the plane will fly in that direction in which it will capture the GOS. lol
                      10. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 14 June 2016 12: 35
                        0
                        This is not a statement, this is a recommendation.

                        Do not care, your words? Yours and evidence.

                        Although it is possible and yes - the plane will fly in that direction in which it will capture the GOS.

                        And you’re even funnier than I thought, the launch range of the R530 is 15 km, most likely less than the range of the radar.
                        Not tired of showing "erudition"?
                      11. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 15 June 2016 04: 35
                        0
                        Do not care for your do not ...

                        And the capture range of a target that itself is actively shining, hoping to catch an echo and not this R.530?
                        The launch range of 20-25km is easily determined by entering Wikipedia.
                      12. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 15 June 2016 06: 56
                        0
                        Well, I wouldn’t expect another wink

                        And the capture range of a target that itself is actively shining, hoping to catch an echo and not this R.530?
                        The launch range of 20-25km is easily determined by entering Wikipedia.

                        I have no idea.
                        Once you find evidence of the use of the Argentine Air Force R530F in a conflict, write.
                      13. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 15 June 2016 11: 13
                        0
                        No one expected that do not look in French.

                        Concepts should be tightened ... the capture range does not depend on the launch range, the opposite is not true.
                      14. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 15 June 2016 11: 20
                        0
                        This is also in Russian.
                        Do you have data on the range of capture of the seeker? Sound it.
                      15. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 15 June 2016 12: 02
                        0
                        Only the French rocket ...
                        Any - the more powerful AWAX, the further it will take it.
              2. The comment was deleted.
    2. Berkut24
      Berkut24 11 June 2016 11: 55
      0
      You can’t even imagine how advanced the means of detection have been since 1982 ...
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 11 June 2016 12: 01
        0
        Yes, nothing to do with it, comrade is kidding or about them completely without a clue, look at his other comments. When searching for a helicopter washed away overboard, they probably semaphore each other with flags or flashlights instead of talking on the walkie-talkie, and not a single ship or aviation navigation radar was turned on, as well as drive systems for landing.
      2. strannik1985
        strannik1985 11 June 2016 12: 09
        -3
        How much?
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 12 June 2016 09: 31
          -2
          So. And what were even earlier!
        2. The comment was deleted.
  23. cap
    cap 11 June 2016 10: 27
    0
    There is another reason for which the US military can insist on “continuing the banquet” with aircraft carriers - similarly in the 80 of the last century, the USA pushed the USSR to invest huge money in the program-response to the US SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative). “Star Wars” ended up being a pure bluff, but the blow to the Soviet economy was very powerful. But if today the American "Nimitz" and "Geralda Fords" unwind with the same purpose, then it is unlikely that someone in the Russian Defense Ministry will bite again on such a bait.

    I read with interest. It’s up to specialists to decide. May God give our leadership the wisdom not to step on the rake a second time, helpfully laid out on the path of development of the domestic defense industry.
    That something like this.
  24. Taoist
    Taoist 11 June 2016 10: 56
    +1
    Aircraft carriers are convenient as a fairly flexible tool for "power projection" - precisely as a political tool. But their combat value (precisely as a weapon system) in the modern situation is rather doubtful. And with the development of unmanned systems, most likely the classic percussion colossus will really disappear from the scene. Because the downside to the flexibility of carrier groups is too high a price (especially upkeep) and potential vulnerability. So most likely the classic AUG will share the fate of battleships - the dinosaurs have outgrown their rational size and will inevitably die out.
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 11 June 2016 12: 43
      +1
      And if the Arabs again make oil in 140, then until they divide again, they’ll be sailing wink
    2. The comment was deleted.
  25. dzerzhinsky
    dzerzhinsky 11 June 2016 11: 01
    +2
    I offer the most effective and cheapest tactics for dealing with aircraft carriers:
    - Throw a barrel of fuel oil or shit onto the flight deck (both of which can be used for fidelity);
    it will be very slippery and the planes will not be able to take off. After that, the command staff of this pile of iron will understand that the battle is lost, surrender and ask Russia to provide a company of psychologists and a lot of toilet paper for the rehabilitation of personnel.
    1. Winnie76
      Winnie76 12 June 2016 20: 42
      0
      Quote: Dzerzhinsky
      I offer the most effective and cheapest tactics for dealing with aircraft carriers:
      - Throw a barrel of fuel oil or shit onto the flight deck (both of which can be used for fidelity);

      I propose recruiting 10 blacks, one for each aircraft carrier. Each lithium screwdriver, cobalt drill and coke jelly.
  26. exo
    exo 11 June 2016 11: 43
    +1
    And yet, it’s too early to bury aircraft carriers. And in local conflicts, it’s a very useful ship. I think that over time, this class of ships will not disappear, but will be greatly transformed. In the direction of reducing the crew and the use of unmanned vehicles for various purposes.
    1. KaPToC
      KaPToC 11 June 2016 15: 35
      0
      It is not necessary to bury aircraft carriers at all, they simply ceded the role of the main striking force to missile ships, aviation in the fleet is needed more than ever.
  27. Atigay
    Atigay 11 June 2016 12: 24
    0
    In connection with the explosive development of drones, it seems to me that new types of weapons will appear, well, for example, uterine aircraft with drones. Such in an aircraft carrier you need no more than 10-15, while each uterus will carry 10-15 drones. As a result, the aircraft carrier will significantly decrease in size and expand the methods of warfare. This is what Russia needs to build.
    1. KaPToC
      KaPToC 11 June 2016 15: 36
      0
      A missile ship is a womb plane with drones, only its drones are disposable.
    2. Winnie76
      Winnie76 12 June 2016 20: 55
      0
      Quote: Atygay
      Well, for example, uterine planes with drones. Such in an aircraft carrier you need no more than 10-15, while each uterus will carry 10-15 drones.

      Well, you have fantasies ... Erotic, you wrapped about the uterus. But this is why the aircraft carrier will decrease did not understand. After all, he will still need uterus-steamers, uterus-submarines, uterus-rackets and uterus-sows to provide personnel and nourish the artificial intelligence of an aircraft carrier with fresh kebabs lol
  28. Ros 56
    Ros 56 11 June 2016 12: 29
    0
    So much for the hell out of the bed. And here the striped zrada. They said, do not mess with banderlogs, here is the result. Your aircraft carriers are only good against civilians. And, as they say, a young man and a sheep himself. And everything is screaming for Obama, we are exceptional, and they will expel you from everywhere, including from the hegemons. hi
  29. Blackmokona
    Blackmokona 11 June 2016 12: 56
    +1
    It is immediately clear that there are experts in the Singapore maritime superpower. It’s immediately clear that ballistic missiles fly at the very edge of the water, and are completely invisible from AWACS aircraft, why are these AWACS at all necessary? Yes, and 99% of the target countries for the United States clearly have a land depth of more than a thousand kilometers, which is understandable even to the last fool. And missile defense missile defense is a useless thing, because it’s clear that 2-3 North Korean missiles can easily penetrate missile defense missile defense, and the poor aircraft carrier will explode ....
    (In general, the article pleased her with delirium)
    1. Uncle Murzik
      Uncle Murzik 11 June 2016 13: 28
      0
      It is immediately clear that there are experts in the Singapore maritime superpower. It’s immediately clear that ballistic missiles fly at the very edge of the water, and are completely invisible from AWACS aircraft, why only these AWACS are needed at all! Generally it’s correct to write ballistic missiles, so many mistakes for an expert! hi
  30. The comment was deleted.
  31. RedBaron
    RedBaron 11 June 2016 14: 54
    -1
    from the beginning of the Second World War there were screams that the aircraft carriers were unnecessary, and with the advent of the Khrushchev rockets, I also wanted to cut aviation into scrap ... laughing
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 11 June 2016 17: 28
      0
      During the war with Japan from 1941 to 1945, more than 100 aircraft carriers were commissioned in the United States.
      1. RedBaron
        RedBaron 11 June 2016 19: 20
        0
        Quote: Vadim237
        During the war with Japan from 1941 to 1945, more than 100 aircraft carriers were commissioned in the United States.

        That's just the point, ideological haters even then sufficed ....
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 11 June 2016 19: 29
          -2
          In 15 years, they will have 100 Arly Burke destroyers and each of them will have 92 universal launch cells.
  32. samoletil18
    samoletil18 11 June 2016 16: 26
    0
    He is scared in Singapore. Any power with an aircraft carrier will control them. Quickly conquer.
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 12 June 2016 04: 33
      0
      The composition of the Air Force and Navy of this small country is better to see.
  33. Denis Skiff
    Denis Skiff 11 June 2016 17: 30
    0
    Yes, and we have good divers
    History as captain of the 2nd rank Murashev "set fire" to the aircraft carrier "Enterprise"
    https: //vkom./feed? uch = schall-67359347_3502666
  34. serg77
    serg77 11 June 2016 18: 43
    0
    It is time to withdraw from the agreement on the RMND. Then it will only get worse.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 11 June 2016 19: 32
      -1
      If we leave the INF, it will be even worse for us.
  35. Besmaster
    Besmaster 11 June 2016 21: 50
    0
    Determine the truth by contradiction. If the US Naval Institute is talking about the end of the era of aircraft carriers, then this is a lie. No one would ever allow such a truth to be published there. That means they are trying to throw dust in the eyes of Russia and China.
  36. The comment was deleted.
  37. serverny
    serverny 11 June 2016 22: 53
    0
    One phrase
    It is difficult to say where after this the planes that departed for the mission will land (from 66 to 84 units on aircraft carriers of the Nimitz class).

    shows the level of knowledge of the "expert" -graphomaniac, who has suffered through this scribbling, who has 84 planes flying from the Nimitz for one mission at a time.
    Minus.
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 12 June 2016 04: 27
      0
      It is difficult to understand that there will be nowhere for any quantity for lack of it? Those that do not fly to the task - everything in it will burn.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Besmaster
      Besmaster 12 June 2016 17: 10
      0
      Where did he write that they fly out simultaneously ?. The number of aircraft on the aircraft carrier is written, you have thought up everything else.
  38. Mentat
    Mentat 11 June 2016 23: 25
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    "aircraft carriers are not built for one or two years of operation) - for today's Russia this pleasure is too expensive in all senses" /////

    Throughout your post, this phrase is key.
    When there is no money - not to aircraft carriers. And if there was money - they would build, like everyone else.

    The USSR had money, but they did not build aircraft carriers. Anyone could develop a project, they could simply copy some project if they were urgently needed, but they considered this type of ship to be an inappropriate investment.

    Today Russia is developing a modern aircraft carrier, and this is more an image move than an urgent need.
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 12 June 2016 10: 50
      0
      And the ships of pr.1143 in your opinion, what? Especially pr.1143.7 "Ulyanovsk".
      1. Besmaster
        Besmaster 12 June 2016 17: 12
        0
        1143.7 was not completed.
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 12 June 2016 18: 20
          0
          Due to the collapse of the Union, and not a lack of money. Carrier ships pr.1123 / 1143 / 1143.3 / 1143.4 / 1143.5 / 1143.6?
          In total, more than 1961 billion rubles were spent on anti-aircraft forces in 1990-11 (SSGN, DFLRK, KR, AB and AVK), pr.1143.5 in the construction of 550 million rubles, pr.1143.7 750 million rubles.
  39. Every
    Every 11 June 2016 23: 26
    0
    In my opinion, too hasty a conclusion about the decline of the era of aircraft carriers. Well, let against countries such as Russia and China, they are not particularly effective. Nobody has yet canceled coastal missile systems, and I don’t think that in the leadership of the United States Navy they will let their vessels into the affected area of ​​these complexes.
    But there are so many countries that can be controlled with the help of aircraft carriers, which is now happening. (Yugoslavia, Iraq and many others).
    Regarding whether Russia needs such ships, I think so. Syria is a good example. It is good that there were bases there from the times of the USSR, which could be used even now. And if there are no such bases? Then only aircraft carriers. Russia needs 2-3 ships of this class, but not now. We will not pull it economically, and nothing can be done about it. You can, of course, build simpler ships, like the Kuznetsov, which, by the way, is now being done by China, and there they are far from being fools, and if they are building, then it is necessary.
  40. Engineer
    Engineer 14 June 2016 08: 40
    0
    Brazil is developing a new aircraft carrier, France is developing, we are developing, Britain is building, China is developing and building, the USA already has an order for aircraft carriers for several decades to come ... yeah, the end of the era of aircraft carriers.
  41. Anton Valerevich
    Anton Valerevich 15 June 2016 18: 17
    0
    The same thing happened with heavy tanks at the time.